Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.814

onset_age

250

36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)

0.732

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.108

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.153

-0.428, 0.172

0.404

time_point

1st

2nd

0.030

0.131

-0.227, 0.287

0.819

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.188

0.189

-0.182, 0.558

0.321

Pseudo R square

0.004

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.380

-0.825, 0.665

0.833

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.158

0.237

-0.623, 0.306

0.505

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.02

0.343

0.351, 1.70

0.003

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.502

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.710

-1.06, 1.73

0.637

time_point

1st

2nd

0.694

0.388

-0.067, 1.45

0.075

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.08

0.562

-0.026, 2.18

0.057

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.182

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.258

-0.473, 0.537

0.901

time_point

1st

2nd

0.043

0.169

-0.288, 0.374

0.798

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.270

0.244

-0.209, 0.749

0.270

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.290

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.410

-0.460, 1.15

0.402

time_point

1st

2nd

0.409

0.247

-0.075, 0.893

0.099

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.416

0.358

-0.285, 1.12

0.246

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.544, 0.912

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.343

0.201

-0.051, 0.736

0.089

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.303

0.291

-0.267, 0.873

0.298

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.213

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.301

-0.983, 0.199

0.194

time_point

1st

2nd

0.119

0.209

-0.290, 0.529

0.569

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.766

0.302

0.174, 1.36

0.012

Pseudo R square

0.017

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.875

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.238

-3.71, 1.14

0.299

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.44

0.623

-2.66, -0.215

0.022

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.202

0.903

-1.97, 1.57

0.823

Pseudo R square

0.011

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.409

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.578

-1.14, 1.13

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.433

0.333

-0.220, 1.09

0.195

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.064

0.483

-0.882, 1.01

0.895

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.513

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.725

-0.581, 2.26

0.247

time_point

1st

2nd

0.477

0.402

-0.310, 1.26

0.236

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.252

0.582

-0.888, 1.39

0.665

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.642

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.908

-0.411, 3.15

0.133

time_point

1st

2nd

1.30

0.473

0.369, 2.22

0.007

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.030

0.685

-1.31, 1.37

0.966

Pseudo R square

0.017

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.336

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.475

-0.579, 1.28

0.459

time_point

1st

2nd

0.448

0.248

-0.037, 0.933

0.072

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.059

0.359

-0.763, 0.644

0.868

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.542

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.767

-1.50, 1.50

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.792

0.411

-0.014, 1.60

0.055

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.420

0.595

-0.746, 1.59

0.481

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.628

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.889

-1.42, 2.06

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

1.17

0.457

0.275, 2.07

0.011

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.205

0.662

-1.50, 1.09

0.757

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.387

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.548

-0.313, 1.83

0.166

time_point

1st

2nd

0.623

0.335

-0.033, 1.28

0.064

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.523

0.484

-0.427, 1.47

0.282

Pseudo R square

0.023

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.354

0.051, 1.44

0.036

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.003

0.198

-0.391, 0.384

0.986

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.353

0.287

-0.209, 0.914

0.219

Pseudo R square

0.027

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.284

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.402

-0.395, 1.18

0.330

time_point

1st

2nd

0.378

0.221

-0.055, 0.811

0.089

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.277

0.320

-0.350, 0.904

0.388

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.293

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.415

-0.117, 1.51

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.347

0.213

-0.069, 0.764

0.104

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.159

0.308

-0.445, 0.763

0.606

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.537

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.759

-0.400, 2.58

0.153

time_point

1st

2nd

0.725

0.371

-0.002, 1.45

0.052

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.450

0.538

-0.604, 1.50

0.404

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.820

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.159

-3.49, 1.06

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.849

0.600

-2.02, 0.327

0.159

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.13

0.869

-2.84, 0.572

0.194

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.445

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.629

-0.224, 2.24

0.110

time_point

1st

2nd

0.364

0.326

-0.275, 1.00

0.266

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.497

0.472

-0.428, 1.42

0.294

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.361

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.510

0.009, 2.01

0.049

time_point

1st

2nd

0.602

0.286

0.041, 1.16

0.037

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.203

0.415

-0.610, 1.02

0.626

Pseudo R square

0.025

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.767

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.084

-0.109, 4.14

0.064

time_point

1st

2nd

0.966

0.557

-0.125, 2.06

0.084

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.709

0.807

-0.873, 2.29

0.381

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.142

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.201

-0.465, 0.321

0.720

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.132

0.152

-0.430, 0.166

0.386

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.170

0.219

-0.260, 0.600

0.439

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.309

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.436

-0.135, 1.58

0.100

time_point

1st

2nd

0.708

0.297

0.125, 1.29

0.018

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.811

0.430

-1.65, 0.032

0.061

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.378

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.535

-0.584, 1.51

0.386

time_point

1st

2nd

0.617

0.318

-0.006, 1.24

0.054

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.179

0.460

-0.723, 1.08

0.697

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.617

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.872

-0.526, 2.89

0.176

time_point

1st

2nd

1.32

0.532

0.280, 2.37

0.014

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.617

0.770

-2.13, 0.893

0.424

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.404

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.572

-0.593, 1.65

0.357

time_point

1st

2nd

0.882

0.317

0.260, 1.50

0.006

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.027

0.459

-0.873, 0.927

0.952

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.222

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.314

-0.623, 0.607

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.216

0.224

-0.222, 0.654

0.336

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.435

0.323

-0.198, 1.07

0.180

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.274

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.387

-0.847, 0.671

0.820

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.420

0.262

-0.935, 0.094

0.111

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.382

0.379

-1.13, 0.362

0.315

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.459

-0.676, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.335

0.239

-0.804, 0.133

0.162

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.584

0.346

-1.26, 0.095

0.093

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.471

-1.00, 0.842

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.490

0.248

-0.975, -0.005

0.049

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.251

0.359

-0.954, 0.452

0.486

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.473

-0.519, 1.34

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.250

0.245

-0.730, 0.230

0.308

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.675

0.355

-1.37, 0.021

0.059

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.935

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.323

-2.04, 3.14

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.10

0.620

-2.31, 0.119

0.078

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.45

0.898

-3.22, 0.306

0.107

Pseudo R square

0.009

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(453) = 29.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(453) = -0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(453) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.56], t(453) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(453) = 66.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(453) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.31], t(453) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.35, 1.70], t(453) = 2.98, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.12, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(453) = 59.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(453) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.45], t(453) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.18], t(453) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-4.69e-03, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.27, 11.98], t(453) = 63.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.54], t(453) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37], t(453) = 0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.75], t(453) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(453) = 59.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(453) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.89], t(453) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.12], t(453) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(453) = 50.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(453) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74], t(453) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.87], t(453) = 1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(453) = 46.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.20], t(453) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.53], t(453) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.17, 1.36], t(453) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [0.07, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(453) = 35.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.71, 1.14], t(453) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-2.66, -0.22], t(453) = -2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.57], t(453) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(453) = 53.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(453) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.09], t(453) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.01], t(453) = 0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(453) = 47.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(453) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.26], t(453) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.39], t(453) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(453) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(453) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.37, 2.22], t(453) = 2.74, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.05, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.37], t(453) = 0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = 4.12e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(453) = 31.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(453) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.93], t(453) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.64], t(453) = -0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(453) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.06e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(453) = -2.68e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.83e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.60], t(453) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.31e-03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.59], t(453) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(453) = 34.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(453) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [0.28, 2.07], t(453) = 2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.09], t(453) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.93], t(453) = 41.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.83], t(453) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.28], t(453) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-7.53e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.47], t(453) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(453) = 52.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(453) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.38], t(453) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -1.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.91], t(453) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(453) = 59.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(453) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.81], t(453) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.90], t(453) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(453) = 42.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(453) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.76], t(453) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.76], t(453) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.12, 30.22], t(453) = 54.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.58], t(453) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-2.23e-03, 1.45], t(453) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-3.74e-04, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.50], t(453) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(453) = 34.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(453) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.33], t(453) = -1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.84, 0.57], t(453) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(453) = 31.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(453) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.00], t(453) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.42], t(453) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.03], t(453) = 42.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [8.70e-03, 2.01], t(453) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.15e-03, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.04, 1.16], t(453) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.01, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.02], t(453) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.67, 30.67], t(453) = 38.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(453) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.06], t(453) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.29], t(453) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.56e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(453) = 90.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(453) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(453) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.60], t(453) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(453) = 46.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(453) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.12, 1.29], t(453) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.04, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.03], t(453) = -1.88, p = 0.059; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.48, 9.33e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(453) = 34.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(453) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-6.30e-03, 1.24], t(453) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.49e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.08], t(453) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(453) = 44.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.89], t(453) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [0.28, 2.37], t(453) = 2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.04, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.89], t(453) = -0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(453) = 46.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(453) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.26, 1.50], t(453) = 2.78, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.06, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.93], t(453) = 0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = 6.13e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.93, 14.79], t(453) = 64.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.61], t(453) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.65], t(453) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.07], t(453) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.26, 12.33], t(453) = 43.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(453) = -0.23, p = 0.820; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.09], t(453) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.36], t(453) = -1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.77e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(453) = 32.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(453) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.13], t(453) = -1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.10], t(453) = -1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(453) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(453) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.97, -4.56e-03], t(453) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -1.22e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.45], t(453) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(453) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(453) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.23], t(453) = -1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.02], t(453) = -1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 5.64e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(453) = 31.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(453) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.31, 0.12], t(453) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.22, 0.31], t(453) = -1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,459.679

1,472.066

-726.839

1,453.679

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,462.910

1,487.684

-725.455

1,450.910

2.769

3

0.429

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,212.837

2,225.224

-1,103.419

2,206.837

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,205.695

2,230.469

-1,096.847

2,193.695

13.142

3

0.004

ras_confidence

null

3

2,750.026

2,762.413

-1,372.013

2,744.026

ras_confidence

random

6

2,733.583

2,758.357

-1,360.791

2,721.583

22.443

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,863.303

1,875.690

-928.651

1,857.303

ras_willingness

random

6

1,865.715

1,890.489

-926.857

1,853.715

3.588

3

0.310

ras_goal

null

3

2,271.955

2,284.342

-1,132.978

2,265.955

ras_goal

random

6

2,263.616

2,288.390

-1,125.808

2,251.616

14.339

3

0.002

ras_reliance

null

3

2,141.211

2,153.598

-1,067.605

2,135.211

ras_reliance

random

6

2,134.382

2,159.156

-1,061.191

2,122.382

12.829

3

0.005

ras_domination

null

3

2,037.611

2,049.998

-1,015.805

2,031.611

ras_domination

random

6

2,027.190

2,051.964

-1,007.595

2,015.190

16.421

3

0.001

symptom

null

3

3,220.186

3,232.574

-1,607.093

3,214.186

symptom

random

6

3,213.571

3,238.345

-1,600.785

3,201.571

12.616

3

0.006

slof_work

null

3

2,561.481

2,573.868

-1,277.741

2,555.481

slof_work

random

6

2,563.761

2,588.535

-1,275.880

2,551.761

3.720

3

0.293

slof_relationship

null

3

2,757.403

2,769.790

-1,375.701

2,751.403

slof_relationship

random

6

2,757.173

2,781.947

-1,372.587

2,745.173

6.230

3

0.101

satisfaction

null

3

2,951.941

2,964.328

-1,472.970

2,945.941

satisfaction

random

6

2,941.336

2,966.110

-1,464.668

2,929.336

16.605

3

0.001

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,346.821

2,359.208

-1,170.410

2,340.821

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,346.879

2,371.653

-1,167.439

2,334.879

5.942

3

0.114

mhc_social

null

3

2,802.403

2,814.790

-1,398.202

2,796.403

mhc_social

random

6

2,797.069

2,821.843

-1,392.535

2,785.069

11.334

3

0.010

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,921.759

2,934.146

-1,457.879

2,915.759

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,917.323

2,942.097

-1,452.661

2,905.323

10.436

3

0.015

resilisnce

null

3

2,545.491

2,557.878

-1,269.746

2,539.491

resilisnce

random

6

2,534.079

2,558.854

-1,261.040

2,522.079

17.412

3

0.001

social_provision

null

3

2,105.558

2,117.945

-1,049.779

2,099.558

social_provision

random

6

2,101.571

2,126.345

-1,044.786

2,089.571

9.987

3

0.019

els_value_living

null

3

2,219.049

2,231.436

-1,106.525

2,213.049

els_value_living

random

6

2,212.665

2,237.439

-1,100.332

2,200.665

12.385

3

0.006

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,222.037

2,234.424

-1,108.019

2,216.037

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,216.692

2,241.466

-1,102.346

2,204.692

11.345

3

0.010

els

null

3

2,763.178

2,775.566

-1,378.589

2,757.178

els

random

6

2,753.613

2,778.387

-1,370.806

2,741.613

15.566

3

0.001

social_connect

null

3

3,171.555

3,183.943

-1,582.778

3,165.555

social_connect

random

6

3,163.575

3,188.349

-1,575.787

3,151.575

13.981

3

0.003

shs_agency

null

3

2,607.769

2,620.156

-1,300.884

2,601.769

shs_agency

random

6

2,602.252

2,627.026

-1,295.126

2,590.252

11.517

3

0.009

shs_pathway

null

3

2,449.315

2,461.702

-1,221.657

2,443.315

shs_pathway

random

6

2,438.939

2,463.714

-1,213.470

2,426.939

16.376

3

0.001

shs

null

3

3,109.029

3,121.417

-1,551.515

3,103.029

shs

random

6

3,099.185

3,123.959

-1,543.593

3,087.185

15.844

3

0.001

esteem

null

3

1,674.803

1,687.190

-834.402

1,668.803

esteem

random

6

1,679.985

1,704.759

-833.992

1,667.985

0.818

3

0.845

mlq_search

null

3

2,362.069

2,374.456

-1,178.035

2,356.069

mlq_search

random

6

2,361.491

2,386.266

-1,174.746

2,349.491

6.578

3

0.087

mlq_presence

null

3

2,506.885

2,519.272

-1,250.443

2,500.885

mlq_presence

random

6

2,502.474

2,527.249

-1,245.237

2,490.474

10.411

3

0.015

mlq

null

3

2,963.857

2,976.244

-1,478.928

2,957.857

mlq

random

6

2,960.949

2,985.724

-1,474.475

2,948.949

8.907

3

0.031

empower

null

3

2,549.606

2,561.994

-1,271.803

2,543.606

empower

random

6

2,539.918

2,564.692

-1,263.959

2,527.918

15.689

3

0.001

ismi_resistance

null

3

2,075.314

2,087.701

-1,034.657

2,069.314

ismi_resistance

random

6

2,072.370

2,097.144

-1,030.185

2,060.370

8.944

3

0.030

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,255.351

2,267.738

-1,124.675

2,249.351

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,249.929

2,274.704

-1,118.965

2,237.929

11.421

3

0.010

sss_affective

null

3

2,324.470

2,336.857

-1,159.235

2,318.470

sss_affective

random

6

2,315.370

2,340.144

-1,151.685

2,303.370

15.100

3

0.002

sss_behavior

null

3

2,347.860

2,360.247

-1,170.930

2,341.860

sss_behavior

random

6

2,341.834

2,366.609

-1,164.917

2,329.834

12.026

3

0.007

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,348.762

2,361.149

-1,171.381

2,342.762

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,340.925

2,365.699

-1,164.462

2,328.925

13.837

3

0.003

sss

null

3

3,259.482

3,271.869

-1,626.741

3,253.482

sss

random

6

3,247.482

3,272.256

-1,617.741

3,235.482

18.000

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.21

125

3.07 ± 1.21

0.404

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

110

3.23 ± 1.20

-0.030

99

3.29 ± 1.20

-0.220

0.719

-0.060

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.00

125

17.80 ± 3.00

0.833

0.045

recovery_stage_b

2nd

110

17.72 ± 2.93

0.089

99

18.67 ± 2.87

-0.487

0.019

-0.531

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.62

125

30.02 ± 5.62

0.637

-0.116

ras_confidence

2nd

110

30.38 ± 5.43

-0.239

99

31.79 ± 5.29

-0.610

0.058

-0.486

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.04

125

11.66 ± 2.04

0.901

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

110

11.67 ± 1.99

-0.034

99

11.97 ± 1.96

-0.247

0.270

-0.238

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.24

125

17.53 ± 3.24

0.402

-0.186

ras_goal

2nd

110

17.59 ± 3.15

-0.221

99

18.35 ± 3.09

-0.446

0.079

-0.411

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.123

ras_reliance

2nd

110

13.49 ± 2.84

-0.229

99

13.97 ± 2.77

-0.431

0.210

-0.325

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.38

125

9.56 ± 2.38

0.194

0.249

ras_domination

2nd

110

10.07 ± 2.34

-0.076

99

10.45 ± 2.30

-0.564

0.245

-0.238

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.79

125

30.21 ± 9.79

0.299

0.277

symptom

2nd

110

30.06 ± 9.43

0.309

99

28.57 ± 9.16

0.352

0.248

0.320

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.57

125

22.06 ± 4.57

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

110

22.50 ± 4.44

-0.174

99

22.55 ± 4.33

-0.199

0.927

-0.022

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.73

125

25.34 ± 5.73

0.247

-0.280

slof_relationship

2nd

110

24.98 ± 5.55

-0.159

99

26.07 ± 5.41

-0.243

0.151

-0.364

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.18

125

21.03 ± 7.18

0.133

-0.387

satisfaction

2nd

110

20.96 ± 6.93

-0.367

99

22.36 ± 6.74

-0.375

0.140

-0.396

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.75

125

11.00 ± 3.75

0.459

-0.190

mhc_emotional

2nd

110

11.10 ± 3.62

-0.242

99

11.39 ± 3.52

-0.210

0.555

-0.158

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.06

125

15.13 ± 6.06

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

110

15.92 ± 5.86

-0.258

99

16.34 ± 5.71

-0.395

0.600

-0.137

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.03

125

21.87 ± 7.03

0.719

-0.094

mhc_psychological

2nd

110

22.72 ± 6.78

-0.343

99

22.84 ± 6.59

-0.283

0.901

-0.034

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.33

125

16.94 ± 4.33

0.166

-0.303

resilisnce

2nd

110

16.80 ± 4.21

-0.249

99

18.08 ± 4.13

-0.457

0.027

-0.511

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.79

125

13.91 ± 2.79

0.036

-0.503

social_provision

2nd

110

13.16 ± 2.71

0.002

99

14.26 ± 2.64

-0.236

0.003

-0.741

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.18

125

17.15 ± 3.18

0.330

-0.237

els_value_living

2nd

110

17.14 ± 3.07

-0.229

99

17.81 ± 3.00

-0.396

0.112

-0.405

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.28

125

13.10 ± 3.28

0.095

-0.438

els_life_fulfill

2nd

110

12.76 ± 3.16

-0.219

99

13.61 ± 3.07

-0.319

0.049

-0.539

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.00

125

30.26 ± 6.00

0.153

-0.393

els

2nd

110

29.89 ± 5.77

-0.262

99

31.43 ± 5.60

-0.424

0.052

-0.555

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.17

125

26.66 ± 9.17

0.295

0.271

social_connect

2nd

110

27.03 ± 8.84

0.189

99

24.68 ± 8.60

0.442

0.053

0.524

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 4.97

125

14.85 ± 4.97

0.110

-0.414

shs_agency

2nd

110

14.20 ± 4.80

-0.149

99

15.71 ± 4.66

-0.354

0.022

-0.618

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.03

125

16.34 ± 4.03

0.049

-0.471

shs_pathway

2nd

110

15.93 ± 3.90

-0.281

99

17.14 ± 3.81

-0.376

0.024

-0.565

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.57

125

31.18 ± 8.57

0.064

-0.485

shs

2nd

110

30.13 ± 8.27

-0.232

99

32.86 ± 8.03

-0.403

0.016

-0.655

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.59

125

12.73 ± 1.59

0.720

0.063

esteem

2nd

110

12.67 ± 1.57

0.115

99

12.77 ± 1.55

-0.033

0.650

-0.086

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.45

125

15.08 ± 3.45

0.100

-0.322

mlq_search

2nd

110

15.07 ± 3.38

-0.317

99

14.98 ± 3.33

0.046

0.845

0.041

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.23

125

13.62 ± 4.23

0.386

-0.195

mlq_presence

2nd

110

13.77 ± 4.11

-0.259

99

14.41 ± 4.02

-0.334

0.254

-0.270

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.90

125

28.70 ± 6.90

0.176

-0.297

mlq

2nd

110

28.84 ± 6.71

-0.332

99

29.40 ± 6.57

-0.177

0.538

-0.142

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.52

125

19.38 ± 4.52

0.357

-0.223

empower

2nd

110

19.73 ± 4.38

-0.372

99

20.29 ± 4.27

-0.383

0.354

-0.234

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.48

125

14.35 ± 2.48

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

110

14.58 ± 2.44

-0.128

99

15.00 ± 2.41

-0.387

0.204

-0.254

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.06

125

11.70 ± 3.06

0.820

0.045

ismi_discrimation

2nd

110

11.37 ± 3.00

0.213

99

10.90 ± 2.95

0.407

0.255

0.238

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.125

sss_affective

2nd

110

10.06 ± 3.50

0.188

99

9.70 ± 3.41

0.515

0.452

0.202

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.043

sss_behavior

2nd

110

9.69 ± 3.59

0.265

99

9.36 ± 3.49

0.400

0.501

0.179

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.389

-0.223

sss_cognitive

2nd

110

8.46 ± 3.61

0.137

99

8.20 ± 3.51

0.505

0.589

0.146

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.46

125

29.84 ± 10.46

0.677

-0.119

sss

2nd

110

28.19 ± 10.04

0.237

99

27.29 ± 9.73

0.552

0.510

0.195

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(414.42) = -0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(435.94) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(332.02) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(372.56) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.73)

ras_confidence

1st

t(310.32) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.73)

2st

t(347.57) = 1.90, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.87)

ras_willingness

1st

t(341.94) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(382.59) = 1.10, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.84)

ras_goal

1st

t(325.56) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(365.57) = 1.76, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.61)

ras_reliance

1st

t(308.68) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(345.50) = 1.25, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.25)

ras_domination

1st

t(354.77) = -1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.20)

2st

t(394.44) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.01)

symptom

1st

t(299.86) = -1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.15)

2st

t(333.90) = -1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.02 to 1.04)

slof_work

1st

t(318.19) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(357.15) = 0.09, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.25)

slof_relationship

1st

t(312.22) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(349.93) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.58)

satisfaction

1st

t(303.99) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)

2st

t(339.43) = 1.48, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.46 to 3.26)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(304.12) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)

2st

t(339.60) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st

t(307.61) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(344.13) = 0.52, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.00)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(302.49) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(337.44) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.70 to 1.93)

resilisnce

1st

t(328.22) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(368.49) = 2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.42)

social_provision

1st

t(313.75) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(351.81) = 2.96, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.82)

els_value_living

1st

t(311.31) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)

2st

t(348.81) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.50)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(301.96) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(336.73) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.70)

els

1st

t(296.66) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)

2st

t(329.48) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.09)

social_connect

1st

t(303.21) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)

2st

t(338.39) = -1.95, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.72 to 0.03)

shs_agency

1st

t(303.36) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)

2st

t(338.59) = 2.30, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.79)

shs_pathway

1st

t(314.25) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)

2st

t(352.42) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.26)

shs

1st

t(302.26) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)

2st

t(337.13) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.51 to 4.94)

esteem

1st

t(377.62) = -0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)

2st

t(412.70) = 0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.52)

mlq_search

1st

t(350.65) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(390.76) = -0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.82)

mlq_presence

1st

t(323.39) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)

2st

t(363.14) = 1.14, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.75)

mlq

1st

t(327.90) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(368.15) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.38)

empower

1st

t(312.35) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(350.10) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.73)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(361.26) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(399.96) = 1.27, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.09)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(349.24) = -0.23, p = 0.820, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.67)

2st

t(389.48) = -1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.34)

sss_affective

1st

t(304.03) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(339.48) = -0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.58)

sss_behavior

1st

t(305.26) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(341.09) = -0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.63)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(303.29) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(338.50) = -0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.70)

sss

1st

t(292.34) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(323.34) = -0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.59 to 1.79)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(234.36) = 1.60, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(221.86) = 3.49, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.35)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(218.41) = 4.35, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.97 to 2.57)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(223.39) = 1.77, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.66)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(220.85) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.33)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(218.14) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.06)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(225.33) = 4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(216.67) = -2.51, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.93 to -0.35)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(219.68) = 1.42, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.18)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(218.72) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.56)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(217.36) = 2.67, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.30)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(217.38) = 1.50, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.90)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(217.96) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.06)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(217.11) = 2.02, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.91)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(221.27) = 3.27, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.84)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(218.97) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.76)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(218.57) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.11)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(217.02) = 2.27, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.07 to 0.95)

els

1st vs 2st

t(216.13) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.94)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(217.23) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.22 to -0.74)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(217.26) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.53)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(219.05) = 2.68, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.40)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(217.07) = 2.87, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.52 to 2.83)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(228.73) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.35)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(224.71) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.51)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(220.51) = 2.39, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.45)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(221.22) = 1.27, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.80)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(218.74) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.56)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(226.30) = 2.79, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.11)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(224.50) = -2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.34 to -0.26)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(217.37) = -3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.42)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(217.57) = -2.85, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.23)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(217.25) = -3.60, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.43 to -0.42)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(215.38) = -3.92, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.83 to -1.27)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(223.86) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(215.80) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.31)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(213.71) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.46)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(216.74) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.38)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(215.19) = 1.65, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.90)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(213.54) = 1.71, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.74)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(217.95) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.53)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(212.66) = -2.31, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.66 to -0.21)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(214.48) = 1.30, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.09)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(213.89) = 1.19, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.27)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(213.08) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.23)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(213.09) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(213.44) = 1.93, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.60)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(212.93) = 2.56, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.07)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(215.44) = 1.86, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.28)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(214.04) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.39)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(213.80) = 1.71, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.81)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(212.88) = 1.63, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.77)

els

1st vs 2st

t(212.34) = 1.95, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.46)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(213.00) = -1.41, p = 0.317, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.33)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(213.02) = 1.12, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.01)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(214.09) = 2.10, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(212.91) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.06)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(220.12) = -0.87, p = 0.772, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(217.57) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.29)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(214.98) = 1.94, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.24)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(215.41) = 2.49, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.37)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(213.91) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(218.56) = 0.96, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.66)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(217.43) = -1.60, p = 0.221, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.10)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(213.08) = -1.40, p = 0.325, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.14)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(213.20) = -1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.98 to -0.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(213.01) = -1.02, p = 0.617, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.23)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(211.90) = -1.77, p = 0.157, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.13)

Plot

Clinical significance